Hi all,

I am struggling with setting up a 2 level  (Major/minor)  revision system in EPDM.   I would appreciate some feedback on the proposal bellow.

We have narrowed our options to the following: 

Option 1 - Major/minor revisions are tracked in meta data.

Minor revisions for:  correcting drawing typos, and part changes that maintain interchangeability.

1. i.e   if a revised part can be intermingled in production inventory with previous iterations of that part without any negative effect then minor revision is appropriate.

Major revisions  for:  changes that render the parts non interchangeable. 

Revision Scheme:   Major- A, B,C,D      Minor :  01, 02, 03, 04

Major  and minor revisions will only show in meta Data and will not be  included in part number.

Note:  For both options  both drawings and models will have the same PN and revision.

Option 2 - Major revisions change the PN,  only minor revision are  tracked in Meta data.

Minor revisions:  same as in option 1  and tracked on data card.

Major revisions:  Changes that render the parts non interchangeable will trigger a PN change.

The part number will be a change to a dash number (very last character in PN).    e.g  300-12345A

300-12345B   OR   a complete change to a PN.

For option #2,  Only minor revisions will be tracked in Meta data.

Questions to group:

-  Are there any users out there who can report a successful workflow for tracking two types of revisions.

-   Which of the above two systems is preferred?

Thanks

Joel T